2ND BATTALION 94TH ARTILLERY
Battalion All Call
05, Jan 2005
The most egregious government behaviors
Some of the more egregious issues I found:
I found that the original intent of the Ranch Hand study, which is the world gold standard for dioxin issues, was changed. Originally (as intended and testified to by the principal investigator scientist(s), who set up the protocols and intent;) described as an Agent Orange Herbicide study. Along with considerations of the “total toxin experience” of other herbicides that the veterans were exposed to at unprecedented levels. But still primarily an Agent Orange Herbicide study.
In the very first draft report - discovered damages started to increase and evidence mounted in diseases and disorders in birth defects, heart disease, vascular disease, neurological ailments, endocrine disturbances, and hematological difficulties this study was drastically changed in intent and protocols. This was mandated by the government including the surgeon general changing protocols to the more stringent models. Another nice touch.
The study then became an Agent Orange DIOXIN study only - with those diseases and disorders that met the VA’s .05 mandated statistical requirements only being reported. Those issues that showed even a 50% increase or more; even though there was dioxin dose rate found; were ignored and not brought to the next level.
Congress and the court that reviewed the Dioxin Act of 1984 have clearly stated that a .05% is not required but only an “increase of incidence” or a “significant correlation” is required. I would submit that a 50% or more increase meets both of these. It did not say a “statistically significant correlation” which would now drive the .05% statistical model. And even that in statistics is not cast in stone and only a guideline as to what is statistically significant. This was strictly a secretary of the VA CFR ploy to block damage compensations.
I also vehemently disagree with this characterization as a “dose response found or even a linear response found”. The assumption is these fellows were primarily skin exposed only; but that cannot be proven.
So even their results must be characterized as:
A. Disorder found by dose rate by skin exposure only.
B. Disorder found by total body burden and exposure type is not known.
This is because method of ingestion does make a difference. Look under you sink or your garage. Many toxins are not dangerous from skin exposures or at least minimized - just do not drink it.
Once again, unless you exclude the other toxins some how; the fact that a dioxin dose was found could be simply just a coincidence. Unless you know the mechanics and morphology of how the dioxin dose rate does what it does. No one has come forth with that little bit of news and only report they found some sort of linear dose response. When the other toxins may even be part of that response. Yes, a purist attitude but this thing again has gotten so screwed up it is the preverbal FUBAR study.
Many other issues I have found that indicate the study is just being manipulated and controlled to the point of uselessness; as to what it was supposed to do.
Unfortunately, what they are doing is misleading the entire world of medicine.
Many medical issues that are found at a 50% increase or greater over the study group; are not being brought forward to the next level and not reported to the world. This is nothing but a government FUBAR.
Think about it this way. If you find in evaluating anything (pick your topic), that a contamination is now causing a 50% failure increase or testing anomaly or latent defect that you may not understand. Do you, as the person in charge, just now ignore that found fact? If you did you probably work for the government. Is not any increase in failure supposed to be reported?
You have fellows dying off of significant increases of heart and vascular related diseases and no one tells anyone. Now that is a study they can be proud of.
Of course they also are trying to play games with failure comparisons with relationship to diseases. If you are comparing a date in time of failures developed you cannot compare that data to new failure data that is compiled 20 - 40 years after the fact. Too many things have happened in this country over the last 40 years in toxin usage and immigration to use that data as a comparison.
The guy that is doing all of this in the studies by the way has now taken a job with the GAO. Coincidence or reward?
Now this next one is for politics and politics alone, which is disgusting.
Now I do not know what is going on here at this stage, since prostate cancer was indeed added to the AO associated list.
Apparently, based on Ranch Hand transcripts, the VA and the NAS/IOM at this time in 1999 had expressed interest in adding prostate cancer and lung cancer based on “an association” or even a “suggested relationship” between dioxin and these particular diseases; “if the Ranch Hand study could see a way to do this”. Not the VA required p-value of 0.05. WHY? This makes no sense except in the realm of politics and I would include presidential politics.
Now what makes this even more strange is that in 2000 the VA, the NAS/IOM, and the Ranch Hand folks all testified to the oversight committee to the one fact the VA is not using the Ranch Hand report to award compensations. Yet, this documented incident above categorically documents they are indeed using and even seeking the blessings of the Ranch Hand report at "any level of support" and not the bogus .05 p-value. I for one would certainly think we should demand an explanation of this little set of contradictory facts.
Now the Ranch Hand report categorically stated they did not find an increase in prostate cancer but lung should be watched.
The rational for the this lack of cancer development:
It also seems that some of these scientists are saying that at low doses, heart disease and increased mortality from this disease and other vascular issues are significant and prevalent. In higher doses, cancers develop at a more rapid pace. One theory put forth was that the Ranch Handers themselves, skin exposures, were dying from heart issues and vascular issues and therefore not living long enough to develop the expected cancers seen in higher dose rates. Damn now that is comforting thought that dioxin will not cause cancers in most of you that were not heavily exposed; because you will not live long enough! Now have they told anyone? The answer is no!
What is left out of this mix is there is possible "method of contamination" that is involved also. Not just the dose rate itself.
This somewhat liberal interpretation of the found facts would also indicate, as I have in the book, that methods of ingestion play a decisive role in what diseases and disorders will develop from which type of exposure. In addition to down select from that; would be the rate of ingestions and reaching some total body burden at some point in time would lend itself to when those manifestations might take place. In other words there are two considerations. Reaching a critical body burden that accelerates any manifestations or long-term on-going damages that slowly develop over time. Including the additional impacts of ingestions of the other forms of toxins or even dapsone. All of this has been totally ignored.
Including that every study done by the US is based off of one type of exposure; that being skin exposure. The only study that has been done that totally disregards the method of ingestion is the Korean AO impact study. Their cohort's; it did not matter what you did: infantry, armor, artillery, or chief cook and bottle washer. What they found was staggering and parallels what Vietnam Veterans and their widows have been saying for decades now. Including the exact same issues found in the Ranch Hand transcripts and then not brought forward; because they did not meet some mythical linear dose response.
Which also lends credence to the scientists themselves concluding that their Ranch Hand study is being used to exonerate the government and protect the chemical companies with their cash rich lobbyist; rather than give a fair assessment of veteran's health.
Something is rotten in Denmark and our government (including the VA and the NAS/IOM) in this little deal!
This is just a tip of the iceberg in philosophy that is being directed by the government. This study has become a sham nothing but a sham. From a herbicide study to strictly a dioxin study when they had the chance to gather all the data and use it properly.
Including when one stalwart Ranch Hand scientist pointed out that this study seemed to be done at the behest of the government to only “exonerate the government” and not to identify the toxin damages; not just part of the dioxin issues. The leader of the study then stated the other toxins were opportunities for future studies. Therefore, this pinhead is looking at future employment opportunities instead of reporting the truth and giving veterans and their doctors a fair assessment.
I also do not like the idea of the fellow doing the statistics as head of the study. That is definitely a conflict of interest. It seems this study has become a computer modeling exercise rather than a medical discovery study.
It seems in this computer modeling - that the dioxin exposure index and the amount of beer nuts eaten are interchangeable and as subject to change depending on what is actually found or the increase or decrease in beer nuts eaten.
The other philosophical issue I see is every cohort group selected goes against answering the question. Are Vietnam veterans worse off and if so in what areas. This was especially apparent in the Army Chemical Corps worker study done by the infamous VA and then the data was kept secret. The only one that has not done this, is the Korean 2003 study.
The most outrageous deal in philosophy is the laughter among the scientists as they discuss how the Air Force will change their medical conclusions from draft to publication. That fellows is what I would call “criminal intent” and "government scientific fraud".
What is not being reported but shows up in the transcripts as substantial increases from primarily skin exposures; they just do not meet some bogus linear regression.
Most of you know already, this subject has been covered up since year one. At least a fifty percent increase in the Ranch Hand handers alone known since 1984; that were primarily skin exposed only.
However, here is the tragedy.
Dr. Schwartz: “I would just like to say, as a way of informing everyone, that the VA did complete a study of the birth defects associated with women veterans. Agent Orange was not in the--was not considered in that because of the presumption that if you served in Vietnam you would be eligible for this; and that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs found that the high rates of birth defects in women and the children of women who served in Vietnam was so high that he did make an announcement that they would be making efforts to compensate these women and their children.”
Immediately following that statement in the oversight review Dr. Albanese (senior principal ranch hand investigator) spoke up:
“Congressman Shays, I think it's very important for me to say, based on what Dr. Schwartz just said, I studied that report on the birth defects to female veterans. The pattern in the Ranch Handers is nearly identical to the pattern in that study. However, because they didn't meet the standard of a linear increase with dioxin, the fact of that difference hasn't been further pursued. That's the tragedy of it.”
Maternal and Paternal birth defects treated entirely different in what is required for associations. While tragic; it is simply government and VA corruption at its finest because of the massive amount of paternal birth defects in comparison to maternal birth defects. A bone thrown out to the veterans regarding politics and money and not scientific truth.
· Lose of short-term memory.
· Increase in the hormone TSH.
· Increase in liver enzymes.
· Increase in hepatic conditions.
· Increase in triglyceride levels.
· Increase in hematology issues.
· Increase in positive natural killer cells.
· Increase in polyneuropathy.
· Obstructive abnormality lung disease and a higher percentage of thorax and lung abnormalities were found.
· Increase in “inflammatory diseases.
· Range of neck motion” and “tendon issues”.
· An evaluation of immunoglobulins found a significant association between initial dioxin levels (estimated dioxin levels in Ranch Hand pilots at time of Vietnam service) and increased IgA (immunoglobulin A) levels. The 1990 study found that the mean white blood cell and platelet counts were significantly greater in the Ranch Hand veterans than in controls.
· Average platelet count and average mean corpuscular increased with dioxin body burden.
· Increase in cardiovascular mortality.
Even an increase in osteoporoses was found and not reported.
Many of these even had dose rates attached to them yet they are all still denied by the VA. In some cases, they stated linear dose rates were actually uncovered but no overt diseases were found. My question to them with no answers was:
Did you use any evaluation procedures other than measuring and comparing other blood tests? For instance if elevated liver enzyme issues are discovered I would expect MRI’s, SCAN, or even liver biopsies to confirm the diagnosis of no overt disease including latent defects and developments such as long term fat cell infiltration and bile duct issues. Already categorically stated as dioxin associated by the EPA in 1993.
· Increase in diabetes and testing anomaly issues discovered.
I lived this one so I know for fact it does exist. They stated they did not understand the fact that 40% of the Ranch Handers with diabetes and insulin issues; did not show any abnormal A1C testing issues. In fact, they stated the veterans were showing lower than normal A1C yet did indeed have diabetes and insulin issues. This should have been put out to the world as a possible test anomaly involving Vietnam Veterans and dioxin; yet, it was not.
How many veterans have and have had diabetes for how long and do not know it until the damages are done. You go to your local doctor for a check up and he from his medical training does an A1C. It comes back great. You have no diabetes or insulin conditions, when the facts are you may.
A1C is about 4 weeks worth of a math log (guess) and the last two weeks is an actual summary of glucose attachment to red blood cells.
Now these guys I think are not seeing the forest because of the trees or the government. If you have increased platelets that means they are replacing faster than normal and may not be as mature as needed. It might also have a tendency to reduce the A1C count since you now have immature and mature cells that you are measuring glucose attachment. Therefore, other red cell tests should be done to see if that is the case to check the status of the red cells; and not just the quantity.
This A1C testing issue has never been brought, once again, to the forefront and the medical community as a whole. Your doctor, VA or civilian, tells you what a great A1C test you have and it now means absolutely nothing based on the Ranch Hand study and dioxin or other toxins and 40% of those with diabetes that show this testing anomaly. The only thing is; no one knows it is now useless and misleading in a segment of our society.
Now many of these issues are sometimes associated with the Epstein Barr virus. Things like hepatic issues, nasopharyngeal cancers, esophageal cancers, natural killer cell cancers, t-cell lymphoma, stomach cancers, etc. In fact, one of the already associated "immune system cancers" called Hodgkin’s disease is associated to the Epstein Barr virus at 60 to 70 percent of the time.
Now the immune system in the human body is a wonderful thing. It generates specific antibodies to fight off certain microorganisms, bacteria, etc that you may have ingested or become exposed to. The problem is in some of these they become deranged and then attack the body itself or will not stop producing these attacking cells. Even the mononucleosis virus can produce some damaging effects. These microorganisms, bacteria, etc are referred to as antigens. The immune system response is called an antigen response.
I asked the question to Dr. Birnbaum who is heading up the EPA dioxin evaluations. She indicated to me that dioxin did not cause an antigen response. That the body did not recognize dioxin as a foreign invader. I have to trust what she says as she is supposed to be the expert and so far I have not detected any overt veterans bias in her presentations.
Although I do believe if dioxin or 2,4 -D resides in the critical and sensitive CNS system and not just in the body’s fat tissue then a response will be created in the form of lesions, voids created, or tumors. Whether you would classify that as an antigen immune response or not I do not know, but I doubt it. It is has been stated that both toxins will store themselves in fat or more lipid cell environments. Obvious if both will be found in tissue samples that to now say they cannot reside in the critical and sensitive CNC environment is total bunk. Given that the only ones who do not agree with this in my studies; has been the VA and the NAS/IOM.
She did not say the other toxins might act as an antigen.
I then called Dr. Catlin at the NAS/IOM and asked if dioxin is not being seen or recognized as an antigen; then is it possible the dioxin cell damages and cell DNA modifications and changes were creating the same response as an antigen response. Specifically the Epstein Barr virus or a similar antigen, without actually seeing the antigen virus. The answer was a real quick no; and followed by a real quick statement, "there is no proof of that." However, I have seen no proof that anyone has even looked at this; much less then said we proved that false.
There are just too many things in common that seemed to be associated with this antigen response and what the veterans are seeing in real data or even from the Ranch Hand study.
We had the response before the antigen Epstein Barr virus was even discovered; yet it was characterized.
As Dr. Rueda (member of the Gulf War Advisory Committee) the author of Pesticides (including dioxin) and Human Pathology stated:
“We, the doctors should know that chemical substances could produce human illnesses just as the microorganisms. The one that we don't still have analytic or specific morphologic tests, it should not allow us to mistake our diagnoses. These new human illnesses can be included inside multiple chemical sensitivity and as sub-categories we should must include: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Gulf War Illness, Sick Building Syndrome, Huelva Toxic Syndrome, Pesticide Exposure Syndrome and others.”
I would conclude he also is stating chemical cell damages and modifications can replicate the response to antigens or even a similar response that is not totally documented yet.
I think there is a definite Vietnam Veterans toxin syndrome of varying systemic symptoms and disorders that fit into many categories of exiting syndromes but never identified to a separate toxin syndrome as the doctor above indicated.
Then if you consider the facts above and these toxins or combination of toxins are replicating a response or close response; then you have to consider the hep C virus also.
Many veterans seemed to have this; yet do not seemed to have all the symptoms normally associated - other than liver destruction which can be from direct dioxin damages from cell infiltration, bile duct issues and cancers which do not require a diagnosis of hep C. It also seems that treatment for this disease has not been successful.
Remember the guys being diagnosed with Hep C in the 80’s were diagnosed with something called "NOT Hep A or Hep B". That is because no one had seen the Hep C virus only the antigen response.
I certainly hope that these brilliant scientists have not overlooked the obvious that dioxin is a cell DNA modifier and what it is modifying and how it is modifying is still unknown. I certainly hope that no one has concluded the same thing and all of this is being hushed up. I would hope that the already determined dioxin unique liver damages established by the EPA from long term inflammation of the liver is also not creating this antigen response and that is what the doctors are seeing and not the exposure to any form of virus.
Possible? I really do not know. I do know that this is the first time in the history of mankind that this cell DNA modifying dioxin and other toxins were used at the same time and has been looked at. From what I have read anything is possible with this toxin or combinations of toxins.
Ironic the EPA has stated this stuff does not operate in a linear fashion yet that is what the Ranch Hand scientists and the VA demand, a linear response. What the EPA has stated that this dioxin sends signals in all directions and is not specific. Many independent scientists state this dioxin seems to be as if you put a hand grenade in the most delicate of human biological process and it goes everywhere.
With these statements I do not see how a dose rate or response could ever be actually determined without having a warehouse full of people you could test to destruction. Not many volunteers for that! Yes, you may be able to detect some trends but to exclude something now because of human genetics and predispositions is impossible. In fact just yesterday the scientists of the world have stated a found genetic predisposition to developing cancer. I am sure the NAS/IOM will disagree with that statement released on 4 Jan 2005.
What I find disturbing is it seems no one is looking at what discoveries are inclusive to a single issue. It seems that many many many disorders in many categories have been uncovered. Yet, no one seems to be looking at the total picture and correlating these issues to a cell issue. For instance, is this blood thickening associated with the vascular diseases that are causing strokes, early death, brain atrophy, and vasculopathy, etc?
Is this triglyceride increase only associated with the diabetes or is this also a blood disorder or an enzyme disorder or a sign of an on-going continuous inflammatory response.
Does this continuous triglyceride rise that is 10 to 15 years before the cholesterol rise or the diagnosis of a diabetic condition now indicate in the Vietnam Veteran a problem that is not associated with 99.99% of the rest of the world. Is it a precursor?
No one is looking at the possibilities and again this is disturbing as far as I am concerned. Like no one really wants to know the total answers are and the effects, especially the government.
Charles Stephenson sent me a copy of Military Officer magazine which had some VA BS AO updates in it. Why the military organizations and military service organizations continue to print this VA garbage is beyond me. In fact the whole thing is misleading with three of those so called approved AO issues only if you were diagnosed within one year of Vietnam and then totally cured or as they say "resolved" within two years. So far, in my case, four neurologist say there is nothing that can be done. I have yet to talk to any veteran that indicates his doctor or neurologist says that anything can be done. Nor have I found anyone that has been cured or in VA terms "resolved".
I can understand them putting out data that says you need to be tested but to put out these VA misleading statements and just lies is unacceptable. Especially in the PCT, Neuropathy, and the Chloracne.
Glenda read it before I did and stated that the data is very very misleading and I commented that is the entire intent.
I cite from the VA board of appeals:
Citation Nr: 0317458
Decision Date: 07/24/03
Archive Date: 07/31/03
“In accordance with the law, this determination took into account scientific studies conducted by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). See 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116(b)(2). The initial NAS report, "Veterans and Agent Orange: Health Effects of Herbicides Used in Vietnam," was issued in July 1993. A number of subsequent reports followed, with NAS issuing its fifth report in January 2003. NAS found that there was inadequate, or insufficient evidence of an association between exposure to Agent Orange, and chronic persistent peripheral neuropathy. Taking into account the available evidence and the NAS analysis, the Secretary found that the credible evidence against an association between Agent Orange exposure and chronic persistent peripheral neuropathy outweighed the credible evidence for such an association and determined that a positive association did not exist. See 68 Fed. Reg. 27,630, 27,636-7 (May 20, 2003); 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116(b)(3).”
Yet, I found in the Korean AO study a positive association at over 96% to dioxin and a positive association to Vietnam Veterans at over 98%.
In the official transcripts, not the lying Ranch Hand reports, I found that the Ranch Hand study had also found a stated dose response to polyneuropathy.
“Dr. Michalek said the data showed a significant increase in the index of polyneuropathy when comparing moderate versus mild or none on all Ranch Handers and in the high category and against current dioxin. Another run through the data showed it correlated significantly with dioxin.” (1)
“III. Study observations to date – Air Force Report (Dr. Joel Michalek) (2)
A significant adverse relation between reported health and dioxin body burden, and an increased risk of reporting fair-to-poor health in the high dioxin-exposed category.
A significant and adverse relationship between peripheral neuropathy and dioxin body burden.”
(1) MINUTES RANCH HAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
October 14-15, 1999
Park lawn Building, Conference Room K
(2) RANCH HAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
October 19-20, 2000
Hilton Palacio Del Rio
San Antonio, Texas
These men were evaluated from 1982 – 2003 and nothing had resolved itself as the VA secretary categorically states.
So which is it the VA secretary and the NAS/IOM is actual saying?
That the Ranch Hand study and/or the Korean study and those doctors/scientists involved are all lying? On the other hand, that every neurologist or doctor in the United States that treated the Veterans for neuropathy is now totally inept and have no idea what they are doing medically, compared to the very medically astute all-knowing omnipotent totally anti-veteran biased secretary of the VA; or very possibly both.
Do we now start medical malpractice lawsuits against our own doctors based on what the secretary of the VA as a representative of the United States government has lied about? If the United States government states it as fact; is that not proof against these doctors who have not fixed us from these neuropathy issues! It cannot be both ways!
As I have commented before this is fast approaching criminal with criminal intent by the secretary of the VA and the White House and I would include the NAS/IOM. Then to have the counselors for the VA boards go in, as above, and spout off nothing but lies against the veterans and his doctor is nothing but collaboration on the part of the government. The scientific evidence is converse of what the VA secretary is stating in his corrupt CFR.
This article in Military Magazine had that pinhead Brown out of the VA Environmental Agents Service putting out his same VA propaganda. Remember this is the same department that in 1985 said any doctor that found an association to dioxin and any medical disorders was nothing but a witch doctor!
My brother sent me an AP release where this same pinhead was distancing the VA and the Veterans issues from the doctors on TV talking about all the effects dioxin can create in the Ukraine president elect. Yet, the VA denies most of these. He should have had a US military uniform on. Then he would have been impervious to any dioxin damages, including liver damages.
Although there seems to be some debate within the NAS/IOM and the VA, that maybe Marine utilities did not protect the veterans as much as the Army fatigues did. Or perhaps if you were eating C-rats lima beans and ham; it had some medicinal preventive measures to it. Sound fictitious? It is about to that point in these studies and the excuses used to not grant compensations and medically cover these issues.
The AP release from this guy Brown had lies in every paragraph. I challenged this pinhead to a debate, if he had any guts behind the lies; but so far no response as I would expect!
The more I found about this NAS/IOM and the VA connection this needs to be investigated big time!
Do not get me wrong, as Dr. Schwartz commented, there is plenty of data the Ranch Hand study has gathered. It is just not being used properly.
In reading a few updates on death rates, which I have not confirmed yet. I found that between 1995 and 2000 that over 17,000 Vietnam Veterans were dying each year. Now the average age as I recall in Vietnam was about 20 years old. Now that would put these fellows in their late forty's or early 50's. I for one think that is quite high but need to look at it closer. It also concluded that after 40 years; that only 1.3 million of us are left. That is from an estimated three million that served in Nam.
However, there seems to be an additional possible one million that may have been exposed to the toxins that never served in geographical Nam. One set being the Navy that got their potable water from Guam which was contaminated.
One sailor who had been stationed on Guam had written to me because of the postings on the website and told me of the amount of toxins and the water supply was contaminated. I then found more data on this actually published in the Pacific Daily newspaper with at least two main articles written; with at least two million dollars spent in cleaning up the base there. This same sailor told the story of being tested using some form of chemical, biological, toxin testing which I had pretty much discounted. I had figured after the LSD and nuclear testing that surely the Government had learned their lessons. That was until I found the veterans testing called Project 112 and SHAD testing. His time frame and what they were doing, pretty much matched his recants. So I was wrong; and they had not learned their lessons.
Amazing; congress and this nation thinks this is acceptable government behavior for treating its own veterans; just do not tie them up and put bags over their heads. Then you upset the entire congress and the senate and they will go on a political rampage for months about how bad it is; demanding resignations and impeachments and on and on. What a political comedy show!
I think we know where they stand and that is only for limiting the budgets for veterans no matter how illegal the denials and methods used; or egregious the government was in causing it.
Hard to get real data on death rates; as I certainly do not believe anything out of the VA and the CDC assessments. They made their choice in the mid 80's that politics and future White House federal funds were more important than scientific truth and a bunch of used government assets. They, the CDC, lied their butts off along with the VA officials.
Thanks Charles for sending that magazine to me.
Best that way,